Ignorance is bliss

Here's a silly little article about why people believe in the paranormal - with the term "paranormal" broadly defined to include everything from psychics to Bigfoot.

In all the "analysis," it never occurs to the writer to consider the possibility that some people believe in some paranormal phenomena because there's good evidence to support their belief. The tacit assumption is that there can't possibly be any evidence, so why look?

But then, only skeptics are cited as experts in the article, so what else could we expect?  

Comments

[Zerdini]

Bertrand Russell wrote:

"“Dogmatism and scepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.”

[Zetetic_chick]

Very interesting the quote of Russell.

I think in the case of current "skeptics" of paranormal, they're in the dogmatic side: they "KNOW" that paranormal phenomena don't exist (because they can't exist!), and any claim on the contrary is product of fraud, delusion, ignorance or wishiful thinking of "believers".

[Paul Welsh]

I have to say that having spent the last 4 years now researching the paranormal (well mainly book research and on the internet) I think anyone who dismisses it out of hand simply hasn't read any of the serious investigation work over the last 100 years or so. I cannot see how any reasonable person could dismiss the body of evidence available. Whether it constitues "proof" is a different matter but there is a vast amount of sensible, well-thought-out evidence presented by rational people with no obvious axe to grind and good credentials.

[william]

“Which raises the bigger question: With science having answered so many questions in the past couple centuries, why do paranormal beliefs remain so strong?”

Which of course he does not point out that many if not most of those discoveries were rejected by most scientists: examples germ theory and heavier than air flight. The list is almost endless of new discoveries being rejected by the so-called experts and scientists of the day. His mind finds it impossible to fathom that he may be rejecting valid phenomena like many of these past scientists to protect their cherished paradigm accepted by the scientific community.

And we wonder why soul evolution is so slow. I do believe that this resistance to change or even consider challenging our existing paradigms might be a very necessary and stabilizing effect on a society maybe even a planet. Besides this may allow god to have more drama and without the paradigm effect all of us might quickly achieve perfection and that would limit god’s expression.

As a couple of enlightened Hindus that I used to study stated that god loves a good play. Apparently in god’s evolutionary approach to soul development it takes lots of experiences to develop those characters for that play. I.e. us.

[Tony S]

Apart from examining the evidence, some people believe because they've experienced the paranormal first hand. Many former skeptics in that category.

[Tony S]

The one thing that most paranormal phenomena have in common is that they suggest the existance of INTELLIGENCE that is non-human and/or non-material.

When science investigates something, it is always an implicit assumption that humans are the most intelligent species that has ever set foot on this planet. That even though human beings have existed for 200,000 years, they didn't start building civilizations until about 6000 years ago, and there are no disincarnate intelligences.

For instance, when faced with something like the Cambrian Explosion, you could argue that extraterrestrials intervened and engineered a bunch of new species, or that it was the work of an 'intelligent designer' or it was completely natural. There's no conclusive 'evidence' for any of these theories, but the naturalistic one is automatically assumed and justified by 'the fossil record is simply incomplete, maybe the evidence will turn up someday'

that's just one example, there are many other areas where science can't fully explain something, but go with the naturalistic, materialistic theory by default. This is justified using 'Occam's Razor'

So it raises the question, if there are disincarnate intelligences, older civilizations, or extraterrestrial intervention in our planet, how would science ever discover it? They would try to explain away the evidence using naturalistic explanations (or hoax).

it's fine to do this, since you don't want to jump to extraordinary conclusions too fast. However where I think the problem lies is that to future scientists this 'best guess' becomes immutable law and dogma that is not to be questioned, the alternate theories get labelled 'pseudoscience' rather than something that may pan out with more evidence. It's not the way science is supposed to work, it's the human element at work, I guess.

[David Chamberlain]

Quote: "... go with the naturalistic, materialistic theory by default. This is justified using 'Occam's Razor'".

As an idealist, I often fail to see why materialists insist that Occam's Razor always supports their view. I often ponder on issues where the non-materialist conclusion would be the most parsimonious. Most so-called paranormal phenomena would fit into this category, of course. But so, in my opinion, would some of the cornerstones of materialist dogma.

The theory of evolution is one of these cornerstones. Natural selection seems to me to be such an unlikely mechanism that it should be excised by the razor. If consciousness were accepted as being pre-eminent, then consciously directed evolution would answer (probably) all of the problems with the Darwinian theory. This does NOT call for a grey-bearded old man in the clouds, however, but perhaps some form of collectively conscious selection of the part of a species as a whole. New species, on the other hand, are a whole other question :)

Idealism is so hard to swallow for most scientists because they seem to believe that 400 years worth of painstaking scientific inquiry would have to be thrown away in order to adopt an idealist stance. This is patently not so. Physical laws are obviously valid in a physical framework. But even physicists agree that the usual physical laws have to be dumped at the quantum level. Idealism says that there is a deeper reality beyond the physical: the metaphysical.

[Tony S]

As an idealist, I often fail to see why materialists insist that Occam's Razor always supports their view.

Occam's razor says that for two competing explanations that fit ALL the facts, the simpler one is most likely correct.

The problem is in the real world that many explainations don't fit all the facts. Inconvenient facts often must be downplayed to make something fit.

In practice Occam's Razor is used to choose the least paradigm-shattering explanation.

[Zetetic_chick]

"As an idealist, I often fail to see why materialists insist that Occam's Razor always supports their view. I often ponder on issues where the non-materialist conclusion would be the most parsimonious. Most so-called paranormal phenomena would fit into this category, of course. But so, in my opinion, would some of the cornerstones of materialist dogma"

I agree. In fact, regarding Stevenson's research, I see reincarnation hypothesis as a better explanation consistent with Occam's razor.

Materialists use Occam's razor to force simplistic non-paranormal explanations of paranormal phenomena. In that case, they always can ask "isn't it a more plausible explanation?" (in this case, they're begging the question against the paranormal)

Winston Wu has a good article dealing with skeptical abuse of Occam's razor:

http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page3.htm

[pec]

Scientific atheism has become very popular in recent decades, and the idea of non-physical intelligence has become almost unthinkable in science departments. The Intelligent Design debate really brought this into focus. People who are indoctrinated into materialism have no doubts.

Recently I was arguing at a materialist "skeptical" blog about life energy and I said there is lots of research on energy healing. They didn't believe me and had never seen any of it, so I posted a link to this recent mainstream experiment:

http://www.uchc.edu/ocomm/newsarchive/news08/jul08/healing.html

Of course they found all kinds of reasons to not trust the researcher's honesty or competence. I agreed with them that we should not accept a hypothesis based on one experiment, but I said there have been many successful experiments (mostly not published in mainstream journals though), and that life energy has been believed in and experienced in all times and places.

None of that matters to them because they "know" that life energy cannot possibly exist. There has been one negative life energy study, by a "skeptic" and of course they take that as proof of their materialist position. All the positive studies mean nothing, and all the direct personal experiences mean nothing.

Life energy is clearly visible to me and I had made the mistake of telling them that, which of course convinced them that I must be insane. And personal experiences count for absolutely nothing to them.

It seems that no amount of logic or evidence means anything to the scientific atheist "skeptics." Parapsychologists like Gary Schwartz, Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, Robert Jahn, etc., are not respected by the "skeptics," and it doesn't matter how much experience or education the parapsychologist has. Anyone who believes in non-physical intelligence has to be deluded, insane, credulous and/or incompetent.

I am very skeptical and I know there is a lot of fakery and incompetence in the world. But it does not follow that all parapsychology is fake or incompetent. There is such an enormous quantity of evidence for various paranormal phenomena, it would be really astonishing if all of it had been faked somehow.

The essential philosophy of these "skeptics" is that nature is mindless and stupid and dead, and most people are stupid and gullible. There is hardly anyone who escapes the labels of stupid and gullible, except for themselves. Even highly educated scientists are not exempt, unless they are reductionist atheists..

It's like a priesthood -- it has attained power and authority and wants to keep it.

As a result, alternative science and medicine has separated from the mainstream and publishes in separate journals. There does not seem to be any communication between mainstream, materialist, scientists, and alternative scientists.

That's why I tried so hard to reason with them at their blogs. They lied about the results of the study I cited -- I could only read the abstract so they felt free to lie. The abstract said there was a positive effect for energy healing, but the "skeptics" read the article and claimed the positive results were cancelled out by negative results, which was a lie.

It's very frustrating but I'm sure that reason and evidence will win out eventually.

[Zetetic_chick]

"That's why I tried so hard to reason with them at their blogs. They lied about the results of the study I cited -- I could only read the abstract so they felt free to lie. The abstract said there was a positive effect for energy healing, but the "skeptics" read the article and claimed the positive results were cancelled out by negative results, which was a lie."

In my opinion, skeptics can't be convinced by evidence and reason. They're irrational believers in materialism and atheism, but delude themselves as "rational skeptics"

Their irrationality is seen in the double standard used by them. Many skeptics said that we should not accept a hypothesis based on one experiment, but at the same use the Randi's challenge against the paranormal. Would they accept psi if someone pass ONE formal test with Randi, for the million dollars?

If not, why they use Randi's challenge as a valid anti-paranormal argument?

If one skeptical test is sufficient to accept paranormal claims, they should accept the skills of astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong, who passed skeptic Michael Shermer's test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1dIUTbZTo

If not, they should to stop using Randi's challenge as a valid anti-paranormal argument, because its use expose them not only as irrational and ignorant, but as hypocrital too.

"It's very frustrating but I'm sure that reason and evidence will win out eventually"

I hope you're right... but I think reason isn't effective (in a intellectual level) with irrational people.

[Tim]

I'm actually rather grateful for Randi and his ludicrous challenge. It often lets me know when people aren't worth trying to have a conversation with...

T.

[Michael H]

In my opinion, skeptics can't be convinced by evidence and reason. They're irrational believers in materialism and atheism, but delude themselves as "rational skeptics"

In which case it's probably best to gently explain to them that they're irrational believers in materialism and atheism who are deluding themselves.

;-)

Don't mean to derail the subject...William:

As a couple of enlightened Hindus that I used to study stated that god loves a good play. Apparently in god’s evolutionary approach to soul development it takes lots of experiences to develop those characters for that play. I.e. us.

Would you explain to us how one becomes 'enlightened'? What is the criteria? How do we know who really is? What if they only think they are 'enlightened' but they really aren't and we just think they are? How do we tell the difference? Are there enlightened Christians? How do YOU know when someone is 'enlightened'? Does this mean there are many who are not as 'developed' as those 'enlightened' ones or perhaps yourself? Is there a universal standard that determines when one is 'enlightened'? What is it? Should we tell those who are not 'enlightened' that they aren't? What if they don't like that? Are we supposed to help the poor unevolved souls? What universes/planets will we be creating and ruling first? How do your 'enlightened' hindus know what god is/likes/wants anymore than anyone else does? Do they know they're right? Do you ask them to prove they're right? Why would you accept what they say on blind faith? Wouldn't that be considered 'unenlightenment' in some way? Do you study others as well? How do you know that what someone else tells you isn't correct and that THEY who tell you something aren't the 'enlightened' ones in actuality? What is the criteria for finding 'enlightened' ones to study? Do 'enlightened' ones feel sorry for all the others? How do you know that 'soul evolvement' is really taking place? Can you prove it? Or do you 'believe' it? What about what others 'believe'? Are they just wrong and if so, how do you know?

[Michael Prescott]

Wow, that's a lot of questions from Anonymous.

A good book to read on this topic is Changes of Mind, by Jenny Wade. Wade lays out the various stages of personal growth as clearly and "objectively" as possible, I think.

For the record, I personally am nowhere near enlightenment, or what Wade calls Unity Consciousness.

As a general rule, people regard any stage of consciousness higher than their own as nonsensical or impossible. The only way to overcome this predisposition is to read up on the subject - or to experience an epiphany, I guess.

[Matt]

I wonder if anyone has seen this?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=133405

[Matt]

Has anyone taken a look at this?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=133405

[william]

"Ignorance is bliss"

But without that ignorance (unawareness) there is no we; or should I say perceived us.

[william]

“Would you explain to us how one becomes 'enlightened'? What are the criteria?”

From my point of view there is no clear-cut operational definition of enlightenment. My own view is that enlightenment is when a person has a “realization” that they are eternal, not knowledge but a realization. World of difference between the two modes of being in the world.

[william]

“Why would you accept what they say on blind faith?”

Because I quote them does not mean I accept what they say as absolute truths. They have one viewpoint my own viewpoint is that this cosmic intelligence that most call god expresses itself though us, which is really itself. Maybe static awareness becomes dynamic consciousness through the process of involution and evolution. Or not? :-)

Do the research and maybe that faith becomes less blind or not.

They (enlightened Hindus) were only one small part of my research and I have not or did not accept what they stated as absolute truths. I noticed their religion had a profound effect on their teachings, which made me somewhat suspect of their teachings.

I used a cross validation approach to my research into the mysteries of life but even that approach has weaknesses. Have to do your own research and inner seeking.

[william]

“How do you know that 'soul evolvement' is really taking place?”

Because you asked at total of 27 questions you are living proof of soul evolvement.

[Michael]

I notice that religion is prominently and repeatedly presented as the RATIONAL alternative. Ghosts vs HOLY ghosts; totally different, one rational, one not. Kind of dilutes the message of the article, doesn't it?

[Hope Rivers]

Whats so irrational about the holy ghost Michael H?

Its the spirit in Christ (God) who is "holy" indwelling in humans, which some choose to follow, some can't hear him, some don't believe but "all" he whispers too and woo's.

Hello again, here is what I was considering as a definition of 'enlightened'..but it doesn't have much to do with 'unity consciousness' or 'research'...

Mother Theresa was a 'do-er'...while others question, contemplate, meditate, study, seek proof, discuss their 'godship', read 'spirits' books, etc., it seems that she was out doing something about things while others would've told the people she was helping that this was their 'karma' or 'development', while they 'studied' and 'contemplated'. There seems to be a difference between the 'enlightened' ones who talk 'love', speak about bizarre perceptions of 'reality', while some don't waste time 'talking' it...which makes a bigger difference and which one is of more service? Which would be 'enlightened'?...I now wonder how many 'enlightened' ones have sold their house/car/whatever for a cheaper/smaller one so that they can give more, how many 'enlightened' ones are buying winter coats for the waitress at the diner on the corner who can't afford one, how much time the 'enlightened' ones are spending at soup havens and homeless shelters, how many kids/adults with bulging stomachs from malnutrition and ribs showing through skin are being sponsored by 'enlightened' ones. Seems like it's one thing to 'sit and think' or 'question' and another to DO something..yet it often appears that the 'sitters/questioners' are the ones who are considered 'enlightened', could this be backwards? Of what value is philosophy in comparison to her?

I have a toaster on my counter top that I could say sits and 'contemplates'...I'm not sure I understand how a definition of 'enlightenment' could be any different from what I have typed above. Would someone who studies with 'enlightened' ones, or contemplates 'unity consciousness' be more 'enlightened' than, say, Mother Theresa? If so, why? Do they give out Nobel prizes for contemplating and researching/studying? Oh, oh..I can't believe I said/implied it here...a Christian who might be 'enlightened'?!?! And even without studying with Buddhists and Hindus??? Say it's not so!

I don't want to speak for her, it just seems unlikely to me, that she would spend much time contemplating whether we really exist or not, or the holographic universe, or if there is a God or not, or if she herself is a god, or if she is the reincarnation of John the Baptist, or of 'unity consciousness'...it would appear to me that the 'enlightened' ones speak with actions not words/study, and don't pass judgements on other people's so called spiritual 'development'.

I'm not sure that asking questions is comparable to actions. Surely, she would be a standard to measure one's self up to rather than the local Buddhist who is contemplating whether or not we really exist? Surely her actions are of more benefit to me as well as others than any questions anyone could possibly ask?

It seems to me that the answer to any question that anyone could possibly ask, might be this:

"Do you see what she's doing? There's the answer to all your questions, just do that."

So why bother with more questions?

[Teri]

"I have a toaster on my counter top that I could say sits and 'contemplates'..."

My toaster sends you a message:

"My role as a toaster is to produce perfect toast. Yours produces burnt, angst-ridden toast. Get a new one that knows how to focus on its proper function.”

[william]

“So why bother with more questions?”

A good question may be more important than a good answer. Life is about process not just results. In fact it may be that the more we focus on the results the more we hinder the process and sub optimize the results. One of the best-kept secrets in the world.

As far as mother Theresa she struggled deeply with her beliefs. She may have been a saint it depends on her motivation underlying her deeds but enlightenment from my point of view is different. Enlightenment is a type of realization not necessarily deeds. One can do deeds one cannot do enlightenment.

One person’s enlightenment may be another’s person’s ignorance. Enlightenment may be just one small step on the journey to perfect awareness. Or not.

[Kalani Hanohano]

Well, I gree that ignorance can be blissful, but ONLY until you get broadsided by a two ton truck which you did not see because you were too busy talking on that stupid cell phone while driving.

I´m not as much concerned with the Sceptics, uh, Skeptics as I am with the spelunkers, uh, debunkers.

I wonder if the Amazing Randi actually exists outside of rumours and fabricated interviews. Consider me a SKeptic!

[Tony S]

I wonder if the Amazing Randi actually exists outside of rumours and fabricated interviews. Consider me a SKeptic!

True, I've only seen photos of Randi, and we all know they can be fabricated. I've also seen photos of Santa Claus, and funny, they both have white beards. Makes you go hmmm....

When is Randi going to appear on the Whitehouse lawn?

[Michael H]

So why bother with more questions?

Perhaps it’s in the hope that by doing so one might arrive at answers. Of course, those who already know all of the answers have no need for questions, do they?

What puzzles me is why those who have all the answers need everyone else to agree with them.

By the way, Hope, the “holy ghost” comment wasn’t mine. Different Michael.

[william]

“What puzzles me is why those who have all the answers need everyone else to agree with them.”

Just heard on the radio yesterday that some scientists believe that they have discovered that the human brain gets some kind of hit or high when it gets others to agree or even when we agree with a certain position or belief that someone is advocating.

Maybe that goes along with my idea that it is an inner doubt that drives most of us to try and get others to agree with our cherished beliefs. When we get others to agree with us it helps to erase that inner doubt and it is like a temporal hit or high.

Could this explain the like attracts like phenomenon and what the scientists called the human brain is really that perceived individual consciousness receiving that hit or high that is affecting a certain section of the human brain that can be measured by physical instruments.

[Michael Prescott]

The resemblance between Randi and Santa has been noted before:

Nearly every time James Randi goes to a restaurant or a mall, somebody stops him to say that with his snowy beard, balding pate, and smiling eyes, he should play Santa Claus. Boy, have they got the wrong guy. Randi sometimes snaps back, “I haven’t heard that in . . . 20 minutes.”

Nice guy, eh?

[Michael Prescott]

I had to delete an anonymous comment. No talk of killing people, please, even in jest.

[Zerdini]

Some years ago I was invited, as an audience member, to a TV programme in which Randi set out to debunk paranormal practitioners.

As a warm-up Randi decided to a magic trick.

After four attempts he finally succeeded!

Let's just say I wasn't impressed.

Yes, Randi does exist.

[Tony S]

Some years ago I was invited, as an audience member, to a TV programme in which Randi set out to debunk paranormal practitioners.

As a warm-up Randi decided to a magic trick.

After four attempts he finally succeeded!

Let's just say I wasn't impressed.

Yes, Randi does exist.

Of course, that's just anecdotal evidence. And we all know how fallible the human memory can be. I'm still not convinced he exists! :-)

[Zetetic_chick]

"//Of course, that's just anecdotal evidence. And we all know how fallible the human memory can be. I'm still not convinced he exists! :-)//"

LOL!

[Zetetic_chick]

Recently, I had a conversation with a professor of psychology. I asked her opinion about parapsychology and psi. She seemed pretty open mind about it, but her response was: "I know a few competent psychologists are woring in that field, but I see as improbable the existence of those phenomena"

I replied: Have you read the books of Dean Radin or Chris Carter? She replied: "I read The Conscious Universe, and I think it's very interesting book. But psi is contrary to most knowledge we had in science, so you need more than statistics to convince skeptics like me. In science, the evidence should be so good that skeptics can't reject it. And psi evidence doesn't fall in that category"

Any of you consider that is possible, to a open mind skeptic, to be unconvinced by current evidence for psi?

In my opinion, no. Psi effects have been demostrated; problem is that most of them are very weak, and not always reproducible at will. You need many experiments to see the effects. (There are exceptions; Daniel Douglas Home had so good powers that he could use them almost at will; but it's the exception, not the rule)

It's not a failure of experimental design, but the own nature of psi effects in most people. If we recognize that, we should admit that the scientific evidence for them is pretty good.

[william]

"we only need to see one white crow to know that all crows are not black." james.

one has to wonder if she would even read the book "no living person could have known."

I guess everyone must find their one white crow in life. or not. :-)

[Tony S]

She replied: "I read The Conscious Universe, and I think it's very interesting book. But psi is contrary to most knowledge we had in science, so you need more than statistics to convince skeptics like me. In science, the evidence should be so good that skeptics can't reject it. And psi evidence doesn't fall in that category"

That's when you should've said 'wow, somehow, I knew you were going to say those exact words!' :-)

In my opinion, no. Psi effects have been demostrated; problem is that most of them are very weak, and not always reproducible at will. You need many experiments to see the effects. (There are exceptions; Daniel Douglas Home had so good powers that he could use them almost at will; but it's the exception, not the rule)

It's not a failure of experimental design, but the own nature of psi effects in most people. If we recognize that, we should admit that the scientific evidence for them is pretty good.

There are plenty of weak forces that science does recognize and measure. IE, if a planet's orbit doesn't quite match what it was computed to be, they'll look for a force to explain it. The problem with Psi is that there is no way to account for it with our current models of the brain in neuroscience- until that changes many scientists will view these effects as unlikely at best, or impossible at worst. And unlike the planet example, psi evidence can't be measured on a device or mathematically proven, so it's easy to wish away as coincidence, faulty methodology, etc.

[Zerdini]

"No Living Person Could have Known" by W.F. Neech gives examples of survival which are hard to discredit.

Thanks, William, for reminding me of that particular one.

[Paul]

I agree Z it's very interesting.

[Michael Prescott]

I've ordered a used copy of No Living Person Could Have Known from a bookseller in the UK. The book appears to be very hard to find in the USA.

Regarding statistics, it's my understanding that the ganzfeld tests have produced better statistical evidence for psi than, say, the average test on the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical product. If we accept the results of pharmaceutical studies, why not the ganzfeld results? Only because changing our body chemistry with pills fits the prevailing paradigm; telepathy and clairvoyance don't.

[pec]

"The problem with Psi is that there is no way to account for it with our current models of the brain in neuroscience"

But the current model -- the brain as computer, not radio -- is just a model, and they have no evidence for it. Of course the brain as radio is much better for explaining psi.

I'm reading Gary Schwartz's energy experiments book, and he must have done hundreds of psi experiments, all seeming to work. At least the ones he describes. He had one subject, a Native American college student, who had learned about rocks and crystals as a child. This subject had a 95% hit rate for deciding whether a box contained a certain rock or crystal, in an experiment with hundreds of trials.

It is very doubtful, to the point of impossibility, that all the subjects in all of Schwartz's psi experiments were cheating. Many of them were ordinary people who did not claim any special powers, so had no reason to cheat. And the Native American with the unusual rock-sensing ability didn't have any motive to cheat either, since he was not trying to become a famous rock sensor. It turned out that he must not have been cheating, since his ability disappeared after a bad reaction to anesthesia for surgery.

I really don't know why skeptics aren't convinced, and I think it's mostly ideological and emotional. If mind without brain is possible, then all kinds of things are possible that modern science supposedly disproved.

I would really like to know why no one has won the Randi prize. It seems that if they test enough applicants, someone should win merely by chance.

[pec]

“Which raises the bigger question: With science having answered so many questions in the past couple centuries, why do paranormal beliefs remain so strong?”

Science has answered parts of some questions, but it has not explained everything. Of course people like Dawkins think it has.

[Michael Prescott]

I would really like to know why no one has won the Randi prize. It seems that if they test enough applicants, someone should win merely by chance.

No one has ever made it to the formal testing phase. All applicants have been disqualified in preliminary trials, or have quit after becoming frustrated with the innumerable delays involved in starting the process.

[william]

"I would really like to know why no one has won the Randi prize. It seems that if they test enough applicants, someone should win merely by chance."

one of the great pr stunts ever thought up. it has worked wonders for his career of being an ultra skeptic.

[pec]

Do you think Randi has deliberately mades it impossible to win? If he sincerely believes no one has any paranormal abilities, then he would have no reason to cheat. And if he thinks paranormal abilities are possible, then he would not be such an anti-paranormal activist.

Randi thinks most parapsychologists are deceived by their subjects. If that were the case -- if psychics and mediums were so great at deception -- then someone should have succeeded at deceiving Randi by now. It does not seem possible that Randi cannot be deceived, but so many scientific researchers can be.

So since no one has won, it must not be possible to win. But what is Randi's motive? I can understand wanting to debunk frauds, but Randi seems to be claiming that all psychics are frauds. Otherwise he would not offer the prize.

As far as I know, professional psychics do not take the challenge. If they are sure of their powers, why not? Maybe they think Randi has anti-psi powers and either deliberately or subconsciously sends out psi-blocking brain waves.

The Native American college student who was tested by Gary Schwartz had a 95% hit rate for detecting energy from rocks and crystals. He took his ability for granted, having communicated with rocks his whole life. There must be other people like that -- why don't any of them apply for the Randi prize? They have nothing to lose if they are not professionals. I can understand why someone like Uri Geller or Sylvia Browne might avoid being tested by Randi and possibly failing and damaging their careers.

As long as the prize is not won, pseudo-skeptics will use it to get the last word in every argument about psi.

[william]

pec this is old news.

it was and is a pr stunt

and a very good one

all these years later people are still taking it serious.

pure genius

[Tony S]

Do you think Randi has deliberately mades it impossible to win? If he sincerely believes no one has any paranormal abilities, then he would have no reason to cheat. And if he thinks paranormal abilities are possible, then he would not be such an anti-paranormal activist.

The best write-up about the problems in the million dollar challange is here:

http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

In the example given, you could easily spend over a million dollars setting up a clean test that's not going to be rejected on a technicality.

As William said, it's a publicity stunt.

[Michael Prescott]

Back in '06, I wrote a four-part series on the million-dollar challenge. Part One is here.

The threads were promptly inundated by the contributions of obnoxious Randi-ites, whose comments proved so irritating that I briefly considered not responding to (or even reading) comments on my own blog anymore!

[Thorsten]

I would really like to know why no one has won the Randi prize. It seems that if they test enough applicants, someone should win merely by chance.

There are several normal reasons:
a) First of all, the prize is open to all applicants which sounds fair, but causes severe disadvantages for the offerer. Many incompetent but greedy people will stream to it for the simple hope that they might be lucky . Both the Wolfskehl and the Longitude Prize bounded resources for years, something which JREF has serious problems to cope with (And the Wolfskehl Prize was won by Andrew Wiles who wasn't interested in the problem, not in the prize at all).

b) Randi hates long and elaborate schemes.
Chances are great that your challenge will be simplified and distorted to suit it Randis purpose and therefore influences its outcome. Second Randi must be sure that the prize is extremely unlikely to win by chance. If you have a small effect size (you can predict the outcome of a coin with a chance of 52% instead of 99%), you simply need more trials. But psi effects are almost always weak. Randi always goes for high effect sizes which gives conveninent small trial sizes but which are simply not suited for psi effects independent if you believe in them or not.

c) The precautions against trickery may destroy your chances and I am not talking about "bad vibes". Suitbertel Ertel invented the "ball-drawing test": Draw a ping pong ball inside a bag and announce the number without thinking before showing it. What happened ? Skeptics who tested him insisted that the probands should wear thick gloves because they might be able to sense the paint on the ball and they devised a drawing scheme which increased the time between drawings twentyfold.

Now the not-so-gentle reasons:

1) If you want to participate, you don't want to be hoodwinked, you want trust Randi.
But unfortunately Randi consistently lies and cheats.
There were a successful passed preliminary test: the Yellow Bamboo Incident. Randi in his usual way mocked the master and YB accepted the challenge. Joko Tri Lestari from Indonesia offered his assistance. Randi wrote him a letter which explicitly gives the right to decide if the preliminary test has been passed. Joko Tri went together with a reporter to the event and was in fact stunned as promised and said the test has been passed. He made also
a vid with extremely lousy quality.
What happened ? Now suddenly Joko Tri wasn't authorized to decide (lie), he violated test conditions (which weren't in the letter) and after prolonged talk with unknown experts Randi decided that it must have been a stun gun.

Next thing: Randi offered his prize for the test of audio cable quality (what exactly is paranormal or occult about that ?). John Atkinson accepted the challenge and after much correspondence Randi finally bailed out (not without throwing much smoke grenades and blaming the victim)!

2) Randi has (purposefully ?) an extremely lousy documentation of his cases. Only successful debunking like that of Achau Nguyen is relatively good documented.

3) Under this circumstances it is not advisable for a psychic to try the challenge if you are already rich, especially if you have a personal vendetta with Randi. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

>the ganzfeld tests have produced better statistical evidence for psi
A problem with clairvoyance experiments is that skeptics can dismiss them easily by saying they just used a bad random number generator.
Balanced psychokinetic tests are much better, because there the quality of the random numbers doesn't matter since these effects can be calculate away.